Jacob Volkmann claims he was earning money "barely above poverty" in the UFC

$40-50K may not be that much after you deduct training, coaching, managerial, insurance co-pays for inevitable injuries, and whatever other costs from it that fighters need to pay. that said, i think in most sports you don't really earn the big bucks unless you become a star.

$40-50K may not be that much after you deduct training, coaching, managerial, insurance co-pays for inevitable injuries, and whatever other costs from it that fighters need to pay. that said, i think in most sports you don't really earn the big bucks unless you become a star.

If you can't afford to be a professional fighter, don't be a professional fighter. It's not like this guy doesn't have other income, he's a chiropractor. He could also easily make money doing seminars.

$40-50K may not be that much after you deduct training, coaching, managerial, insurance co-pays for inevitable injuries, and whatever other costs from it that fighters need to pay. that said, i think in most sports you don't really earn the big bucks unless you become a star.

While all those things are legitimate expenses, because fighters are contractors with the UFC, that means they are legitimate deductions and would actually lower his tax burden. They're not line items that get deducted after his return - they're applied to his business returns or his personal income returns.

Frankly, with his other interests, numbers that don't match officially reported revenue amounts and some apparent hard feelings, I'm not so inclined to take Volkmann at his word. I don't think he thinks he's flat out lying, but I highly suspect he's gaming his numbers.

They have much more than "the right to use their images relating to advertising in the UFC".

Partnering up with THQ/EA Sports to create a video game that is going to net the company a ton of profit (of which none will go to the fighters who were used) is very different than putting someones face/name on a poster to hype up an event.

Also, it is exclusive in some realms (video games specifically).

I don't think that the deal is as bad as some talking heads made it appear, but it is kind of a big deal for some of the more marketable fighters in the UFC to sign those rights away in perpituity.

What if a guy has 3 fights in the UFC, gets released, gets signed by Bellator and then Bellator and 2K Sports hook up to make a Bellator video game. That fighter can't be used on the game... despite his business relationship with the UFC having concluded years prior. Kind of shady.

If the UFC wants to retain these guys rights forever, they should compensate them for it. It makes perfect sense to have someones rights when they are under contact with your company... it makes no sense for them to retain your rights when your business relationship is over.

The UFC pays the fighters that appear in the video games. I have no idea why you think they don't.

While all those things are legitimate expenses, because fighters are contractors with the UFC, that means they are legitimate deductions and would actually lower his tax burden. They're not line items that get deducted after his return - they're applied to his business returns or his personal income returns.

Frankly, with his other interests, numbers that don't match officially reported revenue amounts and some apparent hard feelings, I'm not so inclined to take Volkmann at his word. I don't think he thinks he's flat out lying, but I highly suspect he's gaming his numbers.

According to his website/twitter, the 50k number came after he deducted "fighting expenses." Nice of him not to disclose that in the article. Therefore to say that 50k (plus sponsorship deals, backroom bonuses, AND his other revenue streams) is barely above poverty is ridiculous.https://twitter.com/JacobVolkmann/status/337559590717759488

According to his website/twitter, the 50k number came after he deducted "fighting expenses." Nice of him not to disclose that in the article. Therefore to say that 50k (plus sponsorship deals, backroom bonuses, AND his other revenue streams) is barely above poverty is ridiculous.https://twitter.com/JacobVolkmann/status/337559590717759488

Once the numbers in the original article didn't start matching up with the reported numbers, Volkmann's credibility started to evaporate. Like I said, I don't think he was being overtly deceitful, but he was gaming his numbers and not explaining it.

The UFC pays the fighters that appear in the video games. I have no idea why you think they don't.

How much do they pay them?

Do they pay them a set free for handing over their rights in perpituity, or do they pay them a fee that is determined after the sales of the game are reported?

Does each fighter get paid for each game they are in, or again, is it a chuck of money for handing over rights?

No one on here has any idea because the UFC is very tight lipped about what is in fighters contracts.

Yes, fighters get paid for signing over their likeness rights forever to the UFC. How much do they get paid per video game that they appear in though? Is it a one time lump sum payment, or do they get paid for subsequent apperances in video games?

What if the franchise ends up selling 10 million more units with EA than it did with THQ... can a fighter renegeoiate?

Every indication that I have is that they can't. Once they sign over their rights, the UFC gets to use them how they please. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

The UFC pays the fighters that appear in the video games. I have no idea why you think they don't.

I think it is because of the original spat the UFC had with Jon Fitch when they wanted him and all other fighters to sign over their likeness for video games for life with no cut of the profits from the games. If the fighter dies, no money goes to their families. They can make UFC figures of the fighters and they see no cut from the sales. They might get a small chunk up front, but they see no percentage from any other sales. It is much different than game agreements that the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA have. For Madden, even retired players sued to get a chunk of money, and won.

Do they pay them a set free for handing over their rights in perpituity, or do they pay them a fee that is determined after the sales of the game are reported?

Does each fighter get paid for each game they are in, or again, is it a chuck of money for handing over rights?

No one on here has any idea because the UFC is very tight lipped about what is in fighters contracts.

Yes, fighters get paid for signing over their likeness rights forever to the UFC. How much do they get paid per video game that they appear in though? Is it a one time lump sum payment, or do they get paid for subsequent apperances in video games?

Why do you care? What is your personal interest in what fighters make? I think I can count on one hand how many people have come out and said how bad the pay was and each one of them just ends up looking ridiculous.

Memory is a bit shaky but I thought Fitch revealed back when this all happened that it was $1,000 or $1,500.

I also recall that it allowed the UFC to use his likeness in perpetuity but was only exclusive during the contract. After that it reverted to non-exclusive usage.

I remember this because at the time when it first blew up I thought the UFC was a bit draconian, but as subsequent bits of information weren't nearly as bad as described. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit; by the way, there was a schedule in a secondary merchandising rights agreement lays out a payment plan (I think 10% of gross revenues) to be paid to a fighter if his likeness was used in any branded product like figurines, playing cards or toys.

Granted this isn't the best deal in the world, but it's quite how it's being portrayed. It's definitely not indentured service.

I like that, I think I'm going to go into every thread on here and ask the OP that question. It's productive.

Waylon Lowe is suing a sex toy company? Why do you care?

Vitor issued an apology? Why do you care?

Matt Serra retires from MMA? Why do you care?

Why does anyone care about anything that doesn't put food in their belly or a roof over their head?

It's a fun distraction.

Some poeple like to follow the Jodi Arias case... I think it's interesting to see how Zuffa operates when it comes to non-in cage payouts.

Does that answer your question?

Well if I asked one simple question about it, yeah I guess. Except I asked what your personal interest was and why you care to know what fighters actually get paid? Why do you need to see facts and figures so people can inevitably b---- at these guys for making too much money? You get to see their show/bonus money. Should be enough. Rampage complained about fighter pay.....then it came out he made 15 MILLION dollars over 6 years. 12 fights, 7-5 record, became a household name and got to star in a movie. Yeah, life is rough as a UFC fighter.

Memory is a bit shaky but I thought Fitch revealed back when this all happened that it was $1,000 or $1,500.

I also recall that it allowed the UFC to use his likeness in perpetuity but was only exclusive during the contract. After that it reverted to non-exclusive usage.

I remember this because at the time when it first blew up I thought the UFC was a bit draconian, but as subsequent bits of information weren't nearly as bad as described. I'll see if I can find it.

I remember not taking Fitch's side of it as gospel (very little fact to back up his accusations), but I also don't remember Zuffa coming out and saying much in the way to make me think that they weren't absolutely robbing their fighters.

At the end of the day it's not going to change my life, but I find it interesting to see what Zuffa can get away with and how fans react when presented with information.

I just find these things interesting in any industry. Bands and actors/actresses sign horrible deals all the time where studios make out like bandits and leave their talent with next to nothing... it wouldn't surprise me if Zuffa did the same thing. It also wouldn't surprised me if Fitch was making a big deal out of something he either didn't understand, or that wasn't nearly as bad as it sounded on paper.

Well if I asked one simple question about it, yeah I guess. Except I asked what your personal interest was and why you care to know what fighters actually get paid? Why do you need to see facts and figures so people can inevitably b---- at these guys for making too much money? You get to see their show/bonus money. Should be enough. Rampage complained about fighter pay.....then it came out he made 15 MILLION dollars over 6 years. 12 fights, 7-5 record, became a household name and got to star in a movie. Yeah, life is rough as a UFC fighter.

I don't "need" to see it, but I find it interesting.

I know that the top level guys get taken care of very well. Anyone who has held a UFC title over the last 5 years has made a lot of money fighting and none of them should be crying poor. If they are, they are lying.

I also know that the bottom level guys make next to nothing... but then again, they really shouldn't. No one is buying a ticket to see a guy who is 7-2 and was making $500 to fight in Rumble in the Jungle fight on FUEL prelims.

I'm more interested to know how the mid-level guys/gatekeepers are compensated.

I find this interesting in all sports, I don't get bent out of shape if guys are making too much or too little, it's just interesting to me.

I was always fascinated with this in boxing. Especailly when you'd have the headliner making $30-40 million dollars, and the guy who was fighting on the televised undercard making 5 figures. It was just interesting to see how it all worked out.

Every indication that I have is that they can't. Once they sign over their rights, the UFC gets to use them how they please. That doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Then they have the freedom to not sign the contract. If they decide that the value proposition the UFC is offering to them is worth signing over their likeness rights, they sign. If they don't think it's worth it, they don't sign. I fail to see the problem here, the system is working just fine.

Then they have the freedom to not sign the contract. If they decide that the value proposition the UFC is offering to them is worth signing over their likeness rights, they sign. If they don't think it's worth it, they don't sign. I fail to see the problem here, the system is working just fine.

The problem is that UFC was being accused of threatening to cut fighters who wouldn't sign. (no idea if this was true or not... it was thrown out there by a lot of people though)

What if your boss came up to you and said, "Brick, you've been doing a great job. Look, we want to use you to promote the company, we're going to put your face on billboards around the city and you're going to do a couple of TV commercials... we will give you $1,000 for doing this. If it works out for us, we might call on you to do the same thing next year. If it really takes off, we'll be using your face on billboards for decades to come."

You say, "I'm honored that you came to me, but, I don't really feel comfortable being exposed like that for $1,000... can you pick someone else?"

They say, "Brick, we want team players. Here's how this is going ot work, you can either do this, or you'll be terminated at your next employee review. Good luck finding another job in the industry that pays you the same that we do."

You say, "Okay... well I suppose I'll sign if those are my choices."

They say, "Excellent, way to be a team player! This is going to work out great for both of us, don't spend that $1,000 all at once!"

That's a little different than having the freedom to sign or not sign?

Why do you care? What is your personal interest in what fighters make? I think I can count on one hand how many people have come out and said how bad the pay was and each one of them just ends up looking ridiculous.

I care because I want to see the most talented and skilled athletes in MMA. Athletes follow the money.

The problem is that UFC was being accused of threatening to cut fighters who wouldn't sign. (no idea if this was true or not... it was thrown out there by a lot of people though)

What if your boss came up to you and said, "Brick, you've been doing a great job. Look, we want to use you to promote the company, we're going to put your face on billboards around the city and you're going to do a couple of TV commercials... we will give you $1,000 for doing this. If it works out for us, we might call on you to do the same thing next year. If it really takes off, we'll be using your face on billboards for decades to come."

You say, "I'm honored that you came to me, but, I don't really feel comfortable being exposed like that for $1,000... can you pick someone else?"

They say, "Brick, we want team players. Here's how this is going ot work, you can either do this, or you'll be terminated at your next employee review. Good luck finding another job in the industry that pays you the same that we do."

You say, "Okay... well I suppose I'll sign if those are my choices."

They say, "Excellent, way to be a team player! This is going to work out great for both of us, don't spend that $1,000 all at once!"

That's a little different than having the freedom to sign or not sign?

I see your point; I thought it was a standard part of their contract when they come in, as in you know the score when you sign up. If there is pressure to sign something additional after the fact I suppose I could see the beef.